Spinning V3 Solar Concept - Technical Viability Discussion

As a branch off from another thread in this forum I would like to use this thread to discuss the technology behind the V3Solar project. I came across this project some months ago but until now I have not posted anything about it. Their website is:http://v3solar.com/

Firstly here a video of the tech (please take the time to read the rest of this post before commenting):

Quote:
"V3Solar takes a known fact: Concentration of light increases the production of electrical energy in PV.
And solves a known problem: Concentration of light increases heat, which decreases the production of electrical energy in PV.

Current solar power theory estimates that a square meter of sunlight has a maximum energy content of 1,000 watts. Based on this, a 20% efficient photovoltaic (PV) panel should produce 200 watts of energy from one square meter of sunlight.
Through its unique patent pending design, V3Solar’s Spin Cell is able to concentrate 20X more sunlight on 1X sun mono PV without the cells overheating. This is achieved through a combination of solar concentrating lenses and unique thermal management. The outer cone is larger and focuses the light on the smaller, inner cone that is populated with PV.

Light is transferred to electricity in nanoseconds. Heat is transferred in milliseconds (1,000,000X longer). The PV on the inner cone of the Spin Cell captures the light, generates the electrical energy, and then spins away before the heat can be transferred to the PV.

The V3solar patent pending design also delivers a higher level of efficiency from PV. Tests to date have shown improvements under laboratory conditions of around 20%, which effectively lifts the efficiency of the PV from 20% to 24%.
The Spin Cell’s ability to concentrate light dramatically reduces the amount of PV required for a given output, thus reducing the cost per watt. The improved efficiency of the PV means that less light is required to create the same amount of watts, further reducing costs and improving efficiency of the overall unit. With a 20X concentration of the sunlight, the Spin Cell can produce the same amount of power while using 5% of the PV material. Since the lensing costs 92% less than the PV material, this lowers the cost/watt.

To put it all in one sentence, the Spin Cell concentrates more light on the PV cells, while maintaining a low operating temperature, and the patented spin further improves the efficiency of the PV to increase the total amount of energy produced by each Spin Cell, while lowering the cost per watt."

-

Note that the device uses 20x magnification optics on a reduced area of PV, and not what some critics claim as 20x the power output of flat panel PV! They clearly say there is an efficiency gain to 24% of the solar to electricity conversion rate, NOT 20% x 20 = 400% efficiency! Together with the magnification elements of the system they will use 20x less PV material or only 5% of the PV material required for the same output flat PV module.

They also claim a few things about the "latency" of heating versus "lighting" effect that is meant to help keep it cool as the PV cells rotate inside the hermetically sealed concentrating lense cover. The principle is similar as used for X-ray imaging with a rotating anode as described here: http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=361885
Apparently this allows the system to benefit from the 20x magnification without the associated temperature derate and heat failure associated with conventional PV concentrating systems.

The rotating assembly is without "moving parts" per se and is suspended by magnets (maglev style), which are also the same magnets that are used as the rotor for the "inverter less" AC alternator, that converts the DC current from the PV to Grid type AC. The device can also be configured to deliver DC out as well (a simple rectifier would suffice). Effectively the rotational torque produced by the DC PV produces the force that drives the AC alternator. From what I can tell from the limited information I have found so far is that I assume it runs similar to a coupled motor-alternator to create AC from DC.

(If this is so, a previous idea I had would add another "spin" My idea would be to use the torque to drive a intermediary flywheel system between the rotating top and base, for energy storage internally, instead of using batteries. Hopefully this would lead to greater base load and load following capacity (similar to a conventional fuel powered alternator) and significantly increase network stability with solar PV, especially for short term network loads and transients. There are a couple of flywheel systems installed in WA already, however an integrated version like this does not exist yet to my knowledge. Another benefit would be that the grid frequency synchronisation would be independent of the rpm required to keep the PV rotating at optimum for sunlight collection (incorporating the proposed V3 effects), and the built in variability via a power factor type field control of a AC alternator could be used to optimise PV output, similar to a MPPT controller. In effect it would be an electro- mechanical PV to AC inverter with flywheel energy storage.)

The cone shape also has some interesting properties for placement on the ground and even for mounting multiple modules on a pole. The cone shape seems to prevent shading typically assosiated with tracking PV systems and allows for a higher density placement of the modules, which results in further savings in installation costs.

There are two things that I think still that needs further consideration from the v3solar claims:
One is the "bucket" effect apparently due to the current - voltage characteristic of semiconductors. The effect exists from what I can tell, but to what extent I am still uncertain. Maybe it's just a bad metaphor of something that works technically?

The other is a phenomenon that is claimed to increase performance that I have not yet been able find much information on. That is the one where apparently the "flashing" at sunset or "penumbra effect" increases the intensity and energy harvested by the system. The sunset effect is real from what I can tell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_flash), but information on how it effects PV output is not easy to come by. Of course this optical flashing could also help system efficiencies, if it is of enough magnitude and frequency.

On that basis I would welcome any posts that have some technical background included, rather than just of the cuff "won't work" remarks. I'd like to hear why people think it doesn't work, or just what components won't, as to evaluate it's technical merit. Thanks in advance for your inputs.

I don't really see why I need to refute the grab bag of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo that accompanies this latest Unlikely, Unproven and Unwise to invest in Widget.

This company is actively engaged in raising millions of dollars for its widget.
If an individual engaged in such behaviour he would be charged with fraud or obtaining credit by false pretences.

As the law stands today it is perfectly legal for any company to make false claims and take money from investors.

A good example of such a Triple U scheme which has run its full course is the SunCube.
Not one single widget was ever delivered to a customer.
Dozens of licenses, franchises, and sub-franchises were sold around the world.
I have emails from victims.

Have to agree with Keef on this one, it has around half a square metre of exposed area yet claims an output of 1kWp, which would make it more than 100% efficient. It's rubbish, I would say it produces 100 watts or so max.

JB, I have posted a bit about this device previously. It seems to me to be a classic example of someone not fully cognisant with science double dipping in their explanations. Whatever gains there might be are unlikely to come from the "science" they claim to be harnessing, because their explanations are just plain wrong, in many instances.

a known fact: Concentration of light increases the production of electrical energy in PV

If this is were "known", one would expect to find lots of references to it in both mainstream and popular science literature, yet I am unable to do so. The lack of references questions whether this is a "fact" or just an ambit claim, or spin (pun intended!)

In fact what I found was quite the opposite: “research indicates that while solar cell voltage output in an ideal cell is directly proportional to the light intensity it is exposed to, numerous inefficiencies and inaccuracies in the mechanism throw off the linear variation. The study “Series Resistance Effects on Solar Cell Measurements” indicates that series resistance within the structure of the solar cell itself affects the voltage output proportionately more at higher light intensities... This would mean that voltage output and power production drops off for non-ideal solar cells…”

known problem: Concentration of light increases heat, which decreases the production of electrical energy in PV

Agreed - Google this and you will find any number of published data on the effect.

V3Solar’s Spin Cell is able to concentrate 20X more sunlight on 1X sun mono PV without the cells overheating.

It would take a leap of faith to accept this statement at face value, and I can find not substantiation on their website to make it any more palatable. Here is the first example of double dipping. They are not counting the PV substrate that is not currently being illuminated, because it is spun away from the concentrator.

What I did find when searching for collaborating evidence on solar concentration increasing efficiency, was that optical concentration systems are not lossless (doh!). Therefore if you start with 1 square meters worth of energy, say 1000 watts, and use an optical concentrator you will not have 1000 watts coming out of the other end to feed to your PV cell, the so-called pre-conversion losses. I would expect their system (based what can be gleaned from their animations) would produce less electrical output than a conventional collector using the same amount of PV silicon.

Light is transferred to electricity in nanoseconds. Heat is transferred in milliseconds (1,000,000X longer)

Heat transfer has three mechanisms - conduction, convection and radiation. The speed of conduction is related to material properties including density. The speed of convention is related to fluid flow rates & conduction into and out of the fluid medium, and the speed of radiation is the same as other electromagnetic radiation - namely the speed of light. All of the heating effect of the silicon is from radiation BTW.

and then spins away before the heat can be transferred to the PV

This is claptrap. In the case of heating of PV cells by irradiance, the heat is travelling at the same speed as light. It is not clear to me whether they are so ignorant as to actually believe this to be valid, or whether it is deliberate and intentional obfuscation of the facts in the name of marketing spin. BTW newer generation PV technology is extending generation down into longer infrared wavelengths and this is one of the reasons PV cells are becoming more efficient.

What this link shows a system of cooling an irradiated anode that operates in a vacuum ruling out cooling by conduction and convection. The reason for concentrating so much power on a small area of the anode is to create a powerfully focused x-ray source through a small exit window. It actually uses MORE anode material not less, so this example would not support V3's claims.

The V3solar patent pending design also delivers a higher level of efficiency from PV. Tests to date have shown improvements under laboratory conditions of around 20%, which effectively lifts the efficiency of the PV from 20% to 24%.

This is the second example of double dipping. "Tests to date have shown improvements under laboratory conditions of around 20%" To make their claims more generous they are not comparing like with like. The 20% they are using as a baseline is an anecdotal theoretical value, not what is currently achieved in the field which is around 12-15%. And what happened to the claim of "20X" BTW?

With a 20X concentration of the sunlight, the Spin Cell can produce the same amount of power while using 5% of the PV material

It is unclear from their information how much actual silicon is used, but it would appear to me that the savings are just not there.

To put it all in one sentence, the Spin Cell concentrates more light on the PV cells

It would appear to me that the additional light actually comes from reducing the light on other parts of the PV material, causing transient partial shading of some cells which reduces their output, and over-illumination of other cells which reduces their efficiency and hence their output according to the research I have linked above!

Jeffbloggs said:Together with the magnification elements of the system they will use 20x less PV material or only 5% of the PV material required for the same output flat PV module.

I am afraid that would be a case of having their cake and eating it too! If we look at the effective exposed area of the cone of silicon to the total area of silicon the, it comes out to approximately 28%. In other words, about 3/4 of the silicon is not producing electricity at any time. If you look at the angle of the material, namely about 60 degrees, then we also need to derate the PV output for this less than ideal angle.

For example, in Adelaide the optimum angle for annual yield is 22 degrees. A system at 60 degrees will be derated by 0.79. So the area of silicon has to be derated by 0.28 x 0.79 = 0.22. In the case of a cone, it is slightly less because of the geometry. Note that the optical lenses V3 use are one dimensional in the (essentially) horizontal plane and would not help here, even if they did work.

They have a page showing some test results on their web site, which are virtually meaningless because no information is given about what was tested or what were the test conditions. And there is more pseudoscience or obfuscation as well.

For example, they give some data for the cooling effect of spinning the silicon cones. Spinning the cones will allow the cones to cool through radiation (the side of the cone facing away from the sun will have a net loss of heat through radiation) and through conduction and possibly convection. I have no argument with that.

However the cooling percentages they cite are nonsensical. To be meaningful, they need to be calculated against absolute zero, not some arbitrary temperature (in their case the freezing point of water or 0 degrees Celsius (silicon doesn’t “know” about water or it’s peculiar behaviour and 0 degrees Celsius exists just for the convenience of humans). So the meaningful cooling percentages are 7% not 30%, 10% not 37%, 26%, not 115% and 36% not 221%.

With so many gaffes and blatant misrepresentations of the science, I have difficulty accepting that the “inventors” are actually knowledgeable about PV in any more than a superficial way. To my mind, the whole concept is just “spin” to attract investment dollars. As they say, the “faith of our investors funds our innovation”... and, I suspect, their lifestyle...

OK, I admit it.
I'm OBSESSED.
I'm obsessed with the idea that we need to change the rules to prevent corporate crooks getting away with these types of scams.

If you take the line that anyone who is tricked into giving them money DESERVES to lose it then we may as well open the jails and let all the common criminals go.
After all their victims DESERVED to get bashed, killed or robbed because they failed to protect themselves.

Exactly the same principle IMHO.

The scale of this problem is enormous, there are thousands of companies playing this game.

Victims of Bernie Madoff and Tim Johnston (FirePower) actually committed suicide because they had lost all their money.

Trying to go down the legal road to recover losses will only make matters worse.
The stable door needs to be shut.
(with Greg Watson's neck in the hinge)

Keef-Wivanef said:
OK, I admit it.
I'm OBSESSED.
I'm obsessed with the idea that we need to change the rules to prevent corporate crooks getting away with these types of scams.

Keef that is not the subject of this thread nor is it being discussed here. Could you please take this back to your own thread for discussion. Please keep comments here in line with the subject. Specifically about how the V3 Solar system does or doesn't work technically. Thankyou.

On dimensions they quote:
"Approximately a meter high and a meter wide and producing 1kWp of electricity."
When the sun shines directly overhead the system is around 0.8m2 in area if it's a 1m circle, if it's 1.2m circle it's over 1m2.

They specify "1kWp" which is commonly accepted as kilowatt-peak. Being specifically peak only, I can even get a 1W PV system to produce 1kWp if I buffer the output for a short burst. They also say they have different models ranging in output and as yet I have not seen specifications on a single specific model ie size/performance. I think the marketer got hold of it a bit to early, some more technical data would be good overall. The rotational mass of the thing spinning, for instance, could easily achieve the 1kWp without any batteries etc. I agree that some continuous output specification would be good. It's hard to "fill -in" the gaps, but perhaps they will only give out such information when there IP is wrapped up? Accordingly I don't think it's "impossible", rather improbable that it is able to maintain "1kWp" for any extended period.

BTW did you get a chance to review your position on the "faster than wind into the wind" thread? It did work after all.

Heating of the PV modules is typically overcome by water/oil cooling of the PV modules. They also need to be tracking the sun. This adds to the cost. The v3 solution does have some merit when it comes to cooling, which I hope to explain by first" setting the scene" of the device.

1. The v3 can collect sunlight over the total surface area of the cone if the sun is directly overhead

2. The surface area of the cone is 2.5m2, which is 2.5 times the surface area of it's maximum sunlight capture area (ie directly overhead). If this whole surface is covered with PV that is more than just the surface area of the base alone.

3. The "dark side" of the cone will be shaded from direct sunlight but not void of ambient light influx (reflections) that will assist in producing power

4. An overcast day (shadowless) produces less direct light on any fixed PV surface facing the sun, but the ambient light increase would mean the "dark side" of the v3 would produce more power increasing the area of light collected up to 2.5m2

5. The optical magnification of 20x reduces that area to only 5% of concentrated sunlight area ie 1m2 x 5%(or20xmag.) = 0.2m2. Hence only 5% (at a time) of the PV cells area is required for the same output. Total PV area is greater as per the photos, as some PV cells are in "cooling phase" and because the PV cells are only "flashed" briefly one could expect them to last longer. The solar collection area remains the same however because the optics capture the sunlight not the spinning PV directly.

6. Depending on the lensing optics the PV cells can be illuminated briefly anywhere on the cone surface, even on the rear of the cone not facing the sun

7. For radiative heat sources the X-ray anode is still a viable explanation for the method of cooling. Sunlight is not conductive or convective so these don't come into play. I do not doubt the operating temperatures of the PV cells as proposed and tested.

8. The amount of heat required to be dissipated by the system is identical to conventional flat mount PV. The v3 system has a greater area (2.5sqm cone area) to dissipate heat, and not the same amount of PV absorbing sunlight as conventional flat PV.

9. The rotation of the device creates significant cooling of all the PV cells at once and heat can be dissipated to the outside effectively. The spinning boundary layer effect is now being used in hi-tech PC cooling with great results.

10. The refraction of light through optics aka the sunrise effect, could expose the PV cells to a larger proportion of sunlight than in conventional "one hit" flat PV. For example: Sanyo HIT PV modules are commercially available 2 sided PV modules ie the light can come from the front or back simultaneously. These have been installed with mirrors behind them to double output or alternatively mounted vertically to increase morning and evening output. (BTW Conventional PV can do this also without a backplate) The "dance of light" theme would seem appropriate if it also had internal optics behind the PV cone.

11. The control system used in the v3 to modulate individual PV cell outputs is unknown. With individual row/cell connections and a few diodes shading becomes a non-issue.

12. On optimal angle of incidence: The V3 is a "tracking" type system, it's shape is "3D" not 2d(flat) and it benefits greatly from that. In order to see it's benefit you must compare it with concentrated PV tracking systems, not static flat non-CPV. The sun angle constantly changes in daily and seasonal patterns, a not tracking flat panel is significantly less efficient at capturing all of the light angles ie up to 35% less.

13. On the % of testing temperatures in Kelvin or Celsius. I can agree that kelvin percentages would be more scientific, but as with all % in accountancy, they are not used to define explicate values rather only relationships. This is merely a result of marketing demonstration, not a sign of malignant fraud.

14. Total energy output of the system (or it's cost effectiveness) is measured by the amount of time it produces a certain amount of energy, expressed as kWh. I think the v3 solves some of the variability's of common flat non tracking PV systems well and as such that it can outperform them. I have yet to see or find actual kWh per year data for the v3. That information is more critical in it's relevance than it's "peak" performance. I haven't seen a PV module yet that runs at peak only all year around and accordingly their kWh output is very low in comparison to it's installed capacity. There is plenty of room for improvement that can be made with flat non-tracking PV.

15. The cone shape increases the power density per sqm of land used in comparison to conventional tracking PV. This reduces costs as well.

Please add more numbers to the list with any further points so it's easier to respond to each one. Thanks. I look forward to responses to the points I raised above.
Regards
JB

JB,
I know from various publications I trust that concentrating solar power can have an overall higher efficiency (electrical energy output per incoming radiation energy) than not concentrating PV. (we agree again!) V3Solar has offered a solution against overheating by spinning the receiver, hence spreading the heat input over a larger area. However as said by johnmath they do it by actually sacrificing part of their saving of receiver area, as maybe 3/4 of the receivers are inactive at any time.

As far as I know the efficiency might go up to about 30% with triple junction cells. With Si PV it will be less. And V3Solar claims 20% improvement in efficiency if I understand their pseudo-science language correctly.

I am also OK to accept their funny claims of light faster than heat or something. There is a little bit of truth in it. Because of the thermal mass of the PV receiver it will take a little bit of time to heat it up while it is producing electricity from a relatively cool receiver for a short period of time. The rotation than will carry the next receiver in.

But here is already one question: if there is always a receiver in the concentrated light beam, where is the saving in receiver space? It could be if the receiver was arranged in individual stripes. But both the lenses as well as the arrangement of the receivers do not indicate this.

So the advantages may be:
- 20% higher efficiency (per surface area directed to the sun)
- maybe only 1/4 of the receiver surface of a PV module required(not as claimed 1/20th)

If you want to cover a certain area with PV, these advantages are already lost by the shading profile which a dense arrangement of these cones would have.

But what kills it all is for instance rubbish like one of their press releases:

Spin Cells can also be arranged on our patent pending “power pole,” for increased power density. This is critical for urban areas where land is at a premium. At present 10KW can be mounted on our Power Pole in an area using 10 square meters of space installed. This compares well against flat panel PV which uses approximately 12 square meters installed for 1KW, or a ratio of 12 to 1. With the added benefits of keeping the Spin Cells above flood levels etc.

1) yes, but at a lousy angle of 60degrees which reduces the area to half. Here goes the savings in materials and efficiency.

2)Is this saving PV material? Looks just the opposite.

3)concentration PV has only meaningful input from direct radiation. diffuse radiation does not contribute much. You promote the advantages of more PV area. They claim to use less!

4)as 3)

5) To make use of the 20x concentration factor you need a continuous string of PV panels (no savings on area) or a complicated switching optic synchronised to the gaps between PV cells (which is not shown or claimed).

6)?

7) cooling accepted

8 ) OK, although the covering of the cells by lenses and stuff does not help

9) again there is a cover of lenses above the PV cells, but OK, maybe better heat transfer

10) mirrors behind the PV cells have not been described shown or claimed

11) shading is always an issue. Diodes may prevent total loss of output, but output will still be significantly reduced.

12) The system is not tracking. It is just tracking by accident.

13) all right

14) not sure what you mean. We can agree that there is not sufficient data

15) completely disagree. Shading will be a big issue at low solar angles and dense arrangement

sun2steam said:
However as said by johnmath they do it by actually sacrificing part of their saving of receiver area, as maybe 3/4 of the receivers are inactive at any time.

As per point 2. above the surface area of the "reciever" PV cells can be 2.5times (area of cone) the size of the "collection" area of the optics (area of surface exposed to direct sunlight). The reciever is not the same size as the collector, the reciever area is bigger. They might also be partially translucent as per point 10. above.

sun2steam said:
As far as I know the efficiency might go up to about 30% with triple junction cells. With Si PV it will be less. And V3Solar claims 20% improvement in efficiency if I understand their pseudo-science language correctly.

Tri-juction cells go up to 42% depending on cooling. V3 only claims an improvement or 4% in their "read first" fact sheet as I quoted in the opening post above.
Quote:"Tests to date have shown improvements under laboratory conditions of around 20%, which effectively lifts the efficiency of the PV from 20% to 24%."

sun2steam said:
I am also OK to accept their funny claims of light faster than heat or something. There is a little bit of truth in it. Because of the thermal mass of the PV receiver it will take a little bit of time to heat it up while it is producing electricity from a relatively cool receiver for a short period of time. The rotation than will carry the next receiver in.

Cool

sun2steam said:
But here is already one question: if there is always a receiver in the concentrated light beam, where is the saving in receiver space? It could be if the receiver was arranged in individual stripes. But both the lenses as well as the arrangement of the receivers do not indicate this.

The geometry of the optics is largely unknown. I think the optical facets are triangular and non-linear. As above the reciever is larger than the collector. The 5% of the PV material is a comparitive example note an indication of the reciever size. The reciever cone area covered by PV could be 2.5sqm in a 1x1m model.

As Lance said that is an efficency far greater than 100%
Welcome 'Free Energy' /irony off

S2S the surface area taken up by a tree is not the same as the surface area of shadow that it can cast and the amount of energy the tree collects. The sun is in constant motion and a cone shape is the best optical shape I can think of for reducing shading for nearby v3's. The pointy cone and stubby base means that the maximum of sunlight can be absorbed from a orbiting sun without long large shadows being thrown on eachother. Imagine a "tree" of v3's. The bigger the shadow the more power that is being harvested.

1. The optics could compensate for some of this. ie triangular facets
2. The 5% is only comparative to it's overall output performance over time. The receiver area is larger as can be seen in the pictures/videos. Why show a picture and claim something else? Specifically they say: "With a 20X concentration of the sunlight, the Spin Cell can produce the same amount of power while using 5% of the PV material. Since the lensing costs 92% less than the PV material, this lowers the cost/watt." Through the use of magnification this is a no-brainer. It still has more PV than 5% though.
3. As per 2. the receiver is larger
4. As 3.
5. Not switching optics from what I can tell, optics and PV cells are triangular, the receiver area is larger
6. My point is that even though there is only one surface collector facing the sun, optics could provide a path for even "dark side" PV sunlight use.
7. Still cool!
8. Optical efficiency will determine PV receiver output.
9. OK. The cooling is crucial in achieving CPV performance of the receiver but it is easy to comprehend
10. I know. It was something I derived from their descriptions "dance of light"
11. That depends on the switching arrangment of the control system/power system. Switching speeds and efficiencies with MOSFETs or IGBT's can easily achieve over 95% eff. Like most common inverters. It's only a question of how many "strings" and which are in sync at the time.
12. The surface of the cone is always oriented to the sun, apart from the cone slope angle. It's 3d tracking because it's a 3D shape. Conventional tracking PV moves a 2D flat plate. If anything it's a solid tracker.
13. OK
14. I simply meant that the rated capacity of any system is not indicative of it's yearly energy output. For example: A 1kW PV module under my blanket in my man cave will not produce any useable energy during the course of a year. A monkey spinning that same module towards the sun all year long would. (BTW this also applies to the v3 tree claim)
15. As described in the previous post a cone shape is efficient at not creating shade to nearby systems.

Q1
From what I can tell from the picture nearly the whole surface is covered. There is some framework between the triangular PV cells. As stated above the base is about 1sqm the cone area is however much larger and 2.5sqm. Here a real life video of the spinning PV receiver core without the cover optics:

Q2
That depends on the type of light it is exposed too. When it is in direct sunlight (intense shadow type light) it can't, but it can collect more ambient light than the base, ie 2.5 times as much because of the larger cone surface area. This will increase yearly productivity in areas like Europe where overcast (no shadow) days are common. Sunlight intensity distribution is key to increasing yearly PV performance.

S2S
I'd like to add four further v3 claims to the mix that I questioned in my original post at the beginning of this thread:

16. The diode/semiconductor "bucket" effect. I'd like to know the impact of this effect on system performance.

17. The sunset or penumbra effect. I'd also like to know the impact of this effect on system performance and how it "works".

18. The effectiveness of an alternator type AC generation in comparison to inverter. A inverter is about 30% of cost of grid connected PV. No inverter means savings.

19. The alternator magnets are shared with the maglev "bearings", further reducing components and cost. There is also no losses from brushes etc and it seems that the v3 is synced to the grid at 50/60Hz or RPM as a slow spinning multi pole alternator.

Plenty of reasons have been given here as to why the claims of V3 Solar seem "optimistic"

I'll give you my 2 bobs worth.

By simple geometry half of the area of cells is in the shade when he sun angle is below 60 Degrees - most of the day.
Only when the sun is directly overhead can the full area be illuminated.
The images show a number of narrow strips of lens which are claimed to concentrate the light into a very narrow band of light.
Concentrated Photo Voltaic - CPV was touted as the solution to the "Silicon shortage"
created by the American mammary obsession.
It was a dismal failure and only a few die-hards are still persisting with it.

The claims that light travels faster than heat are ridiculous, even if it was true and light did have an effect in nano-seconds versus heat in micro-seconds the rotation speed of the cone means that the exposure of the strip would be measured in MILLI-seconds.

Lets say 60 RPM and a band of illumination of 1 Degree (out of 360 Duh!)

Time of exposure = 2.7 MILLI-SECONDS

The claimed "Bucket effect" is more properly described as the "crock effect"
i.e. it is a crock of excrement.

TonyT
Thanks for the info. Can you do the same for London as a comparison? The diffuse light component is not the main reason for the v3 design or shape, but can increase performance where diffuse light is more common. As a side-effect it does not increase costs of the primary objectives.

Keef buddy
What you claim as "proof" has already been discussed. Maybe you could go over the last few posts for more clarifiation.

The surface area does not make it "not work" regardless of how much is exposed to sunlight, the peak claim is not it's "average" energy output, like with all conventional PV modules.

Light and heat are not simultaneous. How long does it take water to boil in a solar cooker whilst light passes through it instantaneously? Your angular velocity calculations does not incorporate heat transference effects of materials. Temperature is not the same as heat.

Bucket effect applies to semi-conductors like diodes, but the extent of the effect is still undefined.
Penumbra effect is also not yet quantified and still in discussion.

Tony T
Thx for that. Are there any that you can think of that would be more diffuse? I would of thought the difference was greater...maybe the particule emssion stratigy in Europe is starting to pay off? Maybe Shanghai or China would be worse? One more thing do they have any "vertical surface" data as comparison?

JB, what is really strange is that they claim to be cheaper because they use 1/20th of the area of flat panels. After your description and another look at the video/pictures it appears to me that the cone has actually more PV cell area than an equivalent flat panel per horizontal surface area. Something must be wrong. It cannot be both ways.

S2S
Which claim exactly? It still uses less PV reciever area in comparison to it's yearly output. Just not 5% even if it "can". I think that it is the result of a combination of all the proposed effects, especially including the surface area requirement of the cone shape modules and spacing requirements due to shading on land. It just happens to be around the same figure as the PV material reduction and doesn't apply to a singular v3 module.

Good stuff JB. Here's my responses. I haven't bother to interleave it all as it is time consuming and I don't think i am adding any new information.

1. Yes. 2.5 includes the area of the base of the cone, which doesn't have silicon. The cone has 1.76 times as much silicon as a circle of the same size. A circle would not track. I do not have the mathematical ability to say who wins in terms of output, but my maths does tell me that 1.76 is >> 0.2, which is the amount of silicon they claim to need compared to a standard cell.

2. True but see 1. above.

3. True, but the statistical significance will be approximately equal to didly squat. PV Output is essentially proportional to Irradience intensity. Our eyes have logarithmic sensitivity - PVs do not. They stop working long before it looks dark to us. (An analogy is the performance of wind turbines - low wind speed produce didly squat output.)

4. See point 3 above. The laws of conservation of energy apply to eating and having cake too.

5. I think I did misunderstood what they meant by 20 times magnification. Sorry, but their optical system (as illustrated) will not achieve 20 time magnification anyway. Not anywhere. Not even close.

6. True. But at the expense of reducing irradiance, and hence output, somewhere else on the cone.

7. The rotation is a viable way of heat dissipation it is not a viable way of reducing silicon.

8. The amount of radiant heat incident is inextricably linked to the amount of light incident. They come together as a premixed selection of photons, long and short wavelength, in the same packet. V3's don't get a different universe with different laws of physics to operate in!

9. Agree - the rotation will have a cooling effect as will the additional surface area. But they are claim less silicon, not more!

10. Correct - light trapping schemes where the incoming light is obliquely coupled into the silicon and the light traverses the film several times enhance the absorption of sunlight in the films. What they do is allow more of the incident light get captured. What they don't do is increase incident insolation, which ultimately determines the output of the cell. The "dance of light" is pure pseudoscience mumbo jumbo to impress non-technical, gullible investors.

11. They claim the control system is off the shelf standard proven components.

12. Correct. But the "efficiency of capture" - the proportion of incident face to total area -is LESS than unity at all times irrespective of which way the irradiance is coming from. This contradicts their claims of needing less silicon. Over head it is 0.57, at horizontal it is 0.16, at 60 degrees it is 0.35. By comparison, the same figures for a flat plat perpendicular to the midday sun are: 1 (75% better than V3); 0.5 (43% better than V3); 0 in which case the V3 is infinitely better BUT ∞ x 0 is still 0!

13. Agreed. But there is a pattern of deliberate embellishment of the facts emerging that sets off my BS filters.

14. As best as I can tell, it is going to take all of the fairies at the bottom of the garden dancing on the the V3 for it's output to even come close to the same amount of silicon in an optimal fixed array.

15. Sorry, it can't and it doesn't.

I would love this thing to be a breakthrough just as much as you, but science works within the well established and understood laws of physics. Granted we are always learning new thing. But when someone thinks they can circumvent the laws of physics (even if they are genuinely mal-informed) they are inevitably wrong. Which is kind of handy, because if the laws of physics were wrong, not much of the technology we have today would exist!

Flat panels have IEC61215 and other standards to measure output against. CPV now has IEC62108 but the IEC found it too hard to measure CPV output and so dropped it from the standard. This means ALL CPV manufacturers have no agreed standard to measure output. The developers have decided to provide four output measurements for the SunCube™. So until the CPV industry has an output standard, this is how the SunCube™ will be rated.
SunCube™ DC kWh generation per year based on 10 year NASA averaged Adelaide Direct Beam solar availability of 5.5 kWh/m2/day 700 to 750 DC kWh per year.

Is this a real world output? No it is not, but then neither is the STC Watt peak output of a flat panel.
The SunCube™ flat panel equivalence Watt peak output is a calculation as to what the developers would expect if the SunCube was subjected to the STC Watt peak output rating system used by flat panels.
We know of no measurement technology or PV / CPV test lab that can currently do this measurement.